Appeal No. 2000-0971
Application No. 08/642,224
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Motosyuku in view of Donahue and
Russell. Claims 3 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Motosyuku in view of Kobayashi. Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Motosyuku in view of Takano and Tsuji. Claim 20
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Motosyuku in view of
Matsuzawa.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the
examiner's answer (Paper No. 22, mailed Dec. 6, 1999) for the examiner's reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' brief (Paper No. 21, filed Sep. 21, 1999) for
appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner maintains that the combination of Motosyuku and Donahue would
have taught or suggested the claimed invention. Specifically, the examiner relies upon
the teachings of Donahue to teach the placement of the control element for scrolling of
displayed information on an article of apparel worn on the body of a user. (See answer
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007